the sun is still

In an attempt to keep you all up-to-date with the inner workings of YTMND, I'm going to try and update a little more often. Rather than trying to convince you that I'm working, I'll just publish my results, regardless of how boring they may be to you.

I want to thank everyone who provided feedback on the TODO. I really enjoy reading constructive criticisms and ideas, even if I'm not directly responding to all of it. I want to open a discussion on a couple of topics with this news post, so read more if you are inclined.


So first off:

<technical junk/what I've been up to>



I've migrated all of the database servers over to the latest version of MySQL, which seems to have not only gone pretty smoothly, but also removed a lot of the headaches. Hopefully they should have less hiccups, which means you should see "vote lag" issues less often. While I was at it, I did a good deal of database cleanup, but there are some more major structural changes that require large modifications to the site that I'm doing on a test setup first.

I've also spent the last week migrating the hundreds of files that compose YTMND into SVN (from 3 old CVS repositories). This was a lot of work, because it involved figuring out how I renamed and moved files around for the last 4 years. I found some gems from the past in there too!

Now that everything is in SVN I am beginning the large refactoring that I've wanted to do for a long time. This is a pretty lengthy list of things I need to do in order to get the site's structure and codebase the way I want it. One of the major benefits of this is it will make the site much easier to work on, meaning adding little features and fixes will happen much more often. It also means I can start thinking about opening up the code base to developers that want to add patches or really work on YTMND.

The refactoring is extensive and effects almost every page on the site, as such, I'm going to take the time to split out theme specific stuff to external templates where I haven't in the past. Since I'm doing this, I've sent out a request for new YTMND designs/layouts to a bunch of designers, I've given them 2 weeks at which point I'm going to post them here and let you guys decide which you like best. I haven't figured out how much work the templating will be, but it's possible that the refactoring will include choosable "themes", it might even be possible to get the old design in if someone is willing to do the grunt work. If any of you are serious designers and want to take a shot at it, send me a private message. It is (poorly) paid work.

It is likely while I'm in there I'll make a lot of little fixes and feature enhancements, as well as introducing a plethora of new bugs. Hopefully a few of you will step up and be willing to test everything when it needs it. Anyway, you know how much I like pretty graphs so here is one for you:


You'll notice that I very rarely committed code in the past (and there was a ton of code that wasn't even in the repository until now). With SVN, it means I can update much more frequently without messing up the site, so I am pleased to finally stop "shitting where I eat" as it were. That all being said, due to the significant back end changes required, the site is currently on a semi-lockdown for new features/fixes until I move the production servers over to be mirrors of the SVN repositories. So don't expect much to change in that department for a couple weeks.

<end of technical junk/what I've been up to>




Stuff you should care about but won't: (i.e. feedback needed)



The hall of fame


As most of you know the hall of fame (even pre-neomatrix additions) was filled with a lot of undeserving sites and didn't really make much sense. I've been mulling over how to actually repopulate it with proper sites that really deserve attention, but I keep coming back to the community nature of this site. On one hand, most of the site is governed by "majority vote", top rated, top viewed, top etc etc. On the other hand, the site is more than just "mine", so picking the hall of fame entries should be a task for more than just myself.

I've thought about various schemes where you could get one Hall of Fame vote for each 3 month period you've been a member or something like that, but I wanted to hear from you guys how you think the Hall of Fame should be populated. I want it to be filled with not only the best sites, but the most significant, historical, and most importantly, the most creative sites out there. This is the page that most newcomers will look at, so it is really important that we show them not only the best and the brightest, but a summary of what YTMND is.

So how do you think we should do this? Should I just sit down for a few days and go through as much as I can and pick them and then write a little blurb about each? Should I let the super moderators pick as well? Featured users? Everybody? Possibly allow everyone to vote as a suggestion mechanism only, just so I don't miss anything? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Rules and Moderation


As I mentioned in the last news post, a moderation system is built on rules, and without clearly defined rules the moderation system is bound to fail. I know the whole TODO is a lot for most of you to process, and some of you focused on that bit, but this is necessary to discuss before I proceed. We, as a community, have to come up with a concise and clear list of rules that the community as a whole have to abide by. So:

    Reading material:
  • Rules / Moderation Guidelines / Global Policy

  • Global Permissions (a foundation for possible punishments)


  • What you can do to help:
  • Add to the list of behaviors that should be considered as "bad"
  • Discuss the "pros" and "cons" of certain behaviors and if they should be considered "bad"
  • Discuss possible punishments for each behavior
  • Discuss what the overall focus of user moderation should be, or which areas should be the most important
  • Discuss what to do about repeat offenders/trolls, at what point do we delete people?

  • What you can do to help if you (are an over-achiever/love the site/are trying to brown-nose):
  • Come up with a full list of behaviors and consequential punishments for each.
  • Write a community guidelines document that can be shown to new users.
  • Fucking participate for once



This is something that must have community backing and support and it requires serious discussion. As I said before, I can't (and refuse) to do this alone, so I will keep posting it until I either get the feedback I'm looking for or get sick of the site and go get a real job.


Dec 15, 2007
Dec 25, 2007
Jan 09, 2008
Feb 03, 2008
Feb 19, 2008

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 3 >>
January 9th, 2008
142nd
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
...I like mariostar06
January 9th, 2008
121st
(0)
What if users could moderate other users, to give them a sort of "reputation" once the reputation gets too low on a user, they get put in a queue where they would be reviewed by moderators and assigned punishments such as unable to comment for x hours, unable to vote for x hours etc. would be horribly abused, but its something to tinker with.
January 9th, 2008
123rd
(0)
or make it completely automatic where you could add rep to a users comments, a users votes, or site making. then it would automatically add punishments or... give them more exposure on the front page. hmm.
January 9th, 2008
128th
(0)
Actually I was just thinking about this. Self moderation could actually be possible using a vBulletin style reputation. Where max would chose people to give positive and negative reputation to and then those users could trickle it down to other users. Then the idea is if enough users with a certain amount of positive reputation mark a site NSFW it would do it automatically. And could be applied to other things throughout the site.
January 9th, 2008
131st
(0)
yeah but this of course will be abused horribly. It should be tested among selected users and see how it goes.
January 9th, 2008
136th
(0)
Wed have to choose a group of people that would represent the population of ytmnd. What is the average person on a ytmnder? (Dont mean average person makes sh*tty sites unfortunately but I mean one step higher) Like someone that knows how ytmnd should run without it losing its originality of a website that has funny content in which no video is involved (Lets keep it that way)
January 9th, 2008
137th
(0)
no 07'ers/08'ers allowed.
January 9th, 2008
138th
(-1)
Yea what I'm talking about is people with Classic Sites that did well. Inkdrinker, Mastersitsu, i dunno if fearcondom would count, maybe you steakman, fyrestorm, lina?
January 9th, 2008
139th
(0)
yeah but those are users have status already. we need to mix it up and give regular users the opportunity to help make the site better.
January 9th, 2008
144th
(0)
Thats where you ask the question "Should max trust new users?" By new i mean users he hasn't already trusted. I guess you are right the old users might not want to be around this site anymore and they already have status already, but its just a hard list to choose the right people.
January 9th, 2008
146th
(0)
well then maybe it should just be a job for the moderators to test and have control over.
January 9th, 2008
151st
(0)
It depends on what the moderators responsibilities already are. I haven't gone over all of what the Moderation rules are in max's post, but maybe I would just have to SEE what they are. What would you say on a scale of 1-10 the amount of responsibilities a moderator would have steak?
January 9th, 2008
155th
(0)
regular mods wouldn't be EXTREMELY important, but they do, or will, make a difference once the system is completed.
January 9th, 2008
160th
(0)
Truly What makes ytmnd one of the best sites continuing, is originality. I am sick of going to youtube, and watching this incredibly epic movie of something that comes from another site. 10 million views whatever, but in the related videos category, I see 20 of the same thing I just watched. It has 1 mil views, 500,000 whatever. It amazes me to read their comments, no1 ever mentions how it already has been posted. I am shocked, and if you post saying "its been posted already" they wont care at all.
January 11th, 2008
433rd
(0)
^ I KNOW SERIOUSLY RIGHT! Instead of watching dumb videos posted by 10 year olds, we get to watch sophisticated videos (converted into GIFs) posted by 12 year olds.
January 12th, 2008
484th
(0)
I like this idea. You could rate users like you can rate Xbox live users. You should also be able to file complaints, which would bring their rating down as well as bring certain issues to the attention of moderators. Also writing reviews about users or comments about users would be kind of cool. That way you could see what biases they may have and what kind of sites they prefer. Actually maybe that isn't really important but still would be kind of neat I guess. Not top priority of course.
January 9th, 2008
130th
(3)
I think the whole "downvoter" and "upvoter" thing is bullsh*t to moderate, simply because, I choose to mostly avoid sites I dislike, meaning I generally avoid users I dislike, which makes a lot of my votes tend towards the 5 or 4 area. If a site just really pisses me off, I'll 1 it. Should I be forced to use the full spectrum of the voting system if I don't feel the need to do so? I can understand your disdain towards gimmick upvoter or downvoter accounts, but what automated system can deal with those?
January 9th, 2008
133rd
(1)
Yea not to mention there are still alot of sites on the recently created that are worth 1'ing it. One reason I avoid watching recently created ytmnds is because it creates a trend of 1s and then I wont realize there is some sort of program on ytmnd.com that reads me 1'ing all these sites and registering me as a downvoter. also I do agree with one post, MurdarMachene does rule at random stuff.
January 9th, 2008
145th
(0)
Let us subscribe to users of our choice
January 9th, 2008
148th
(0)
Hey max, you say you want feedback and i've never been shy offering my thoughts but the problem is I don't know what you want. That is to say, if it were me, the 'bad' people are people like fourest. But for all I know Fourest may be responsible - directly or not - for 75% of home page views. So you clearly aren't going to delete and ban someone like that. How many times has he been caught using alts and then continued to cheat? Not only is he not punished but he's rewarded with featured user statis...
January 9th, 2008
149th
(1)
So if someone new comes here and they learn how badly fourest has cheated the system and see that he is rewarded even after being caught time and time again - what do you think that new person is going to think about the rules you list? I mean, what does it f*cking matter?
January 9th, 2008
153rd
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
How many times are you going to mention this '06 crap anyway?
January 9th, 2008
154th
(-1)
I personally don't think Fourest is a problem. I like him, and most his sites. It'd be different if he were using alts to promote garbage, but most his stuff is decent. Also, I think that a lot of his sites are really indicative of what YTMND is all about.
January 9th, 2008
157th
(-1)
Thanks eb, and also Umfuld/Umfold who was pretending to be "away on vacation and someone made an Umfold account and impersonating Umfuld", back in '05 Chav-Slayer has done the same as I have and now he has changed and I have also. All of the users that mention my alts are pathetic because it's old news that happened in '06.
January 9th, 2008
158th
(-2)
Personally I've exposed dozens of people using alts. I know that I'm going to get hammered by revenge downvotes. Big deal. But it would be nice if ONCE you actually did something about it after they are caught. Fightera thru Fighterz is not a case of 'maybe it is more than 1 person.' It's one *ssh*le. He used many alts to downvote my sites - basically because I caught him cheating. But because you don't do anything - NO ONE CARES. The message from you: Cheat and you will be rewarded
January 9th, 2008
163rd
(1)
So I don't mean to be a dick or nothing. I've tried to help as much as I could here - even done gave you a little cash I couldn't afford to give - but f*ck it and f*ck you. Trolls using 30 alts have a better chance to get a site a lot of views than I do. When that changes - when you or whoever are ready to do the minimum of moderating any web site such as this needs - send me an email. I'll come back with some moar batman
January 9th, 2008
173rd
(0)
and fourest, max posted like a month ago that you were still using many many alts. You begged him not to ban you for it, remember? Remember, liar who has changed? 'Memeber? liar? Crazy sh*t house rat?
January 9th, 2008
176th
(0)
I don't think fourest uses alts... he lives in a large household with many brothers and sisters who also enjoy viewing YTMNDS... are they not supposed to 5 their own brother's sites? Also, one of his sisters is sooooooooooo hit-able
January 9th, 2008
177th
(0)
And max, back to what I said about maybe queers like fourest bring in most of your ad revenue - so what the f*ck. You're gonna cater to him I guess. For me, even without alts, just the sh*t about getting on AIM and begging 100s of people to 5 your site - and watching the spy and PMing everyone who doesn't - that's the stuff that should be punished but instead you reward it. You want to feature queers like that, like fourest and dmaz - then f*ck you. Enjoy your gay, unfunny, circle jerk f*g fest of a website
January 9th, 2008
196th
(0)
well said, what have you accomplished. max knows the whole story and you don't.
January 9th, 2008
202nd
(1)
I like how everything that happened in September of 07 was in 06 in Fourest's mind. Fourest, while I believe you've stopped using alts and vote begging, you still have to deal the consequence of your actions. Why should anyone believe anything you say when you keep going back and do the stuff you've sworn off doing?
January 9th, 2008
207th
(1)
Right now you have to prove yourself with actions and complaining how people vote on your sites isn't doing that. This is something that's going to take months to do. I wouldn't trust you to mod anymore than FatherMcKenzie.
January 9th, 2008
210th
(0)
Ok, that's your own opinion.
January 9th, 2008
291st
(1)
Fourest, it isn't an opinion it's a fact. There are way too many people here who don't trust you because of past incidences. You have to demonstrate that you have changed. While I can see some things you are doing different, how can I know this is permanent instead of temporary? You mentioned Chav-Slayer and the same thing happened to him. But Chav-Slayer's alt abuse really did happen in 05/06 while yours was last summer (don't try to deny it, the proof is out there).
January 9th, 2008
303rd
(-1)
There wasn't any serious alt abusing since '06.
January 10th, 2008
365th
(2)
For the record: I used alts only once, back in 2005 when I was inexperienced with the ways of the web. I annoyed some downvoters around the time I was starting to try and make some good original work and I didn't want my stuff to disappear unseen, which did happen with sites, good or bad. One thing I did know back then was not to get worked up over petty disagreements - I never used them abusively on other users and when I was deleted for them, that was the end of it. Never begged, never e-venged.
January 10th, 2008
367th
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
So please Fourest, don't compare my past on YTMND to your own abusive deeds. You've been doing this for over a year now, and it's easy to find evidence of extra accounts you've used to spite numerous users. Using them temporarily and then deleting them or votes (http://ytmnd.com/users/szerepi/comments) is not acceptable. Murdar's 'imaginary legacy' comment holds some truth; you clearly delude yourself regarding your abuse as well as your status. Quit the drama, it's getting old.
January 10th, 2008
387th
(1)
Fourest, stop trying to rewrite history. Your alt abuse last year is well documented. You even made a site about (f*ge9.ytmnd.com). http://www.ytmnd.com/news/?news_id=77&start=750#comments
January 10th, 2008
404th
(0)
lol the demise of Fourest.
January 11th, 2008
445th
(1)
Umfuld. I am glad that you are finding users who are using alts. The only problem is you are focusing on the people who were using alts to counter morons who do nothing but mass downvote sites. Have you ever revealed Darthwang or Father McKenzie's alts? I have and they have/had alot. I don't mind that you find people using alts it's just your c*cky f*cking attitude that makes me dislike you. P.S. when you are looking for alts why not focus on the average user not featured users you are jealous of.
January 11th, 2008
454th
(0)
POS, he is focusing on everyone using alts. While I think he spends too much time focusing on Fourest--Max clearly isn't going to do anything with him--he isn't just focusing on featured users and ignoring others.
January 28th, 2008
641st
(0)
I DO NOT USE ALTS FOR DOWNVOTING. I have one alt, and I use it to make sites. That's it. I haven't even used it for months. I HAVE NEVER USED AN ALT FOR UPVOTING/DOWNVOTING, EVER.
January 9th, 2008
156th
(0)
Also avatars please. -57
January 9th, 2008
175th
(2)
...how is that bald f*cker going to help anything??
January 9th, 2008
227th
(0)
56k warning!
January 9th, 2008
159th
(0)
I'd like to see where site's views and votes are coming from. Maybe something as simple as a list of who's voted on a page, not what they voted, just who they were.
January 9th, 2008
162nd
(1)
Max, please give us Unicode!
January 9th, 2008
166th
(0)
...what the f*ck is unicode? If I have to wear a blazer- count me out.
January 9th, 2008
197th
(0)
&39853; &9572; &P1ZZ4; is unicode. See? You can't see it.
January 10th, 2008
350th
(0)
we used to have it. I remember one time someone posted a ytmnd called "I can say the word f*ck" or something like that and it showed the unicode for the letter u, everyone was trying it out on the comments and it really did work you can bypass it and see the whole word. Then max made a comment trying the same thing. =/
January 9th, 2008
165th
(-1)
in b4 200, also cake
January 9th, 2008
168th
(1)
You know... I'm curious as to what people think YTMND is all about... sites like this? http://ytmndstarrynight.ytmnd.com/ or more towards this end of the spectrum: http://holycrapbecarefulwiththose.ytmnsfw.com/
January 9th, 2008
170th
(0)
and, MAX- what do you wish there was more of on YTMND?
January 9th, 2008
186th
(0)
Personally, I feel that ytmnd is a perfect mix of both. It isnt a porn romp through piles of crap like the second, but it isnt a stunning, yet quick to bore flickr tour. Its a mix of both, a mix through which you can find whichever based on your mood.
January 9th, 2008
174th
(-1)
unban me from the wiki
January 9th, 2008
179th
(0)
As for the hall of fame, the general template is for some group (either a select group or the population as a whole) to nominate sites for entry into the hall of fame and then, from that group of sites, have some group (either a select group or the population as a whole, and they do not have to be the same group both times) to vote on the narrowed group of sites as to which gain entry into the hall of fame. The qualifications for the original launch will likely differ from the latter groups...
January 9th, 2008
180th
(0)
as it will need to be larger to make up for the lengthy prehistory. After that, there can either be a definite amount of sites to be entered at each voting period or a certain vote standard that a site must reach (like baseball's hall of fame) wherein 0 sites may possibly be entered or some higher number (likely capped). That's a pretty general template for the typical Hall of Fame, and it really just depends on whose opinion you care about and at which point of the process.
January 9th, 2008
182nd
(1)
i knew you could not resist.
January 9th, 2008
183rd
(0)
The drawbacks of each choice are fairly simple: Large populations make mediocre choices, while small populations have the ability to make terrible and/or great choices along with mediocre ones. Selecting a definite amount of sites each period better characterizes the progression of ytmnd in terms of time but may allow unfit sites to squeeze in during a down period, while a voting standard may fail to capture the actual history of ytmnd (voting patterns fluctuate...
January 9th, 2008
185th
(0)
and certain periods of ytmnd's history may be completely unrepresented or overly represented. Furthermore, some sites may get in at one point that may not have gotten in at any other point in history merely because the voting pattern at that point in time is higher than at any other time even though it is still hierarchically in the same position relative to those other sites nominated along side it as in any other period). Those are the things to consider as I see it.
January 9th, 2008
187th
(0)
(((I could have resisted, but I chose not to. I participated by choice, not temptation.)))
January 9th, 2008
192nd
(1)
choice my ass, i should tell everyone now. but who would care.
January 9th, 2008
184th
(0)
You should be the only one to pick who goes into the hall of fame. And delete people's accounts if they're douchebags.
January 11th, 2008
446th
(0)
Yeah that's not a 10 ton truck on his back...
January 9th, 2008
188th
(1)
Personally, i feel that the general diversity of content can be lacking. Many sites just get created out of one popular fad. Sometimes these are done well but most of the time, they aren't. Once the moderators are in place, there should be a section (or a box on the front page) where there is a weekly competition (similar to what b3ta do) suggested by the mods. Different competitions could be stuff like use X movie in your ytmnd or remix X track into your ytmnd. This would, hopefully, create some sort
January 9th, 2008
189th
(1)
of healthy competition between users as well as inspiring more users to get involved more often. I for one rarely have good ideas on my own. There doesn't necessarily have to be a real prize at the end of each week, maybe a section under /browse where it has a list of all previous winners. Also, you could use the 'this is a competition entry' selector when you're creating the site. There could be a box on the front page which cycles random sites put into that weeks comp and then a link to a list of all the
January 9th, 2008
191st
(0)
sites when you follow the box header. I'm sure other users can add ideas to this if they feel it has any worth.
January 9th, 2008
193rd
(1)
If you aren't familiar with b3ta, have a quick look here: http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/
January 9th, 2008
190th
(0)
You should do the every three months gets a vote thing so new people can't vote in all these f*ggy short films.
January 9th, 2008
201st
(0)
i think "f*ggy short films" is one of the most over used phrases on ytmnd
January 9th, 2008
194th
(0)
A word on the TODO page: Will the "moderator monitoring" be available to all users? Because if it were, certain mods (cough BTape cough) would probably be picked on less. And if it is available to all users, it may be a good idea to make removal of that privelege a punishment in itself. That page is the greenest I've ever seen on YTMND. Also, a note on the new design/layout: Will Peeing Rainbow Horse or My Little Pony themes be an option?
January 9th, 2008
204th
(0)
Also, Max, are you aware that ytmnd.com/statistics, ytmnd.com/info/survey.html, and ytmnd.com/clipboard.php no loner work? I don't know if you meant for these to be lost, or if they were innocent casualties in that jump in that graph you just supplied us in November (which is when they disappeared). And I saw Total Recall for the first time the other day... now I know what Get Your *ss to Mars means.
January 9th, 2008
252nd
(0)
AND ANOTHER THING. WHY IS *SS SOMETIMES CENSORED AND SOMETIMES NOT?
January 10th, 2008
342nd
(0)
Ass
January 9th, 2008
203rd
(3)
can i just get a tshirt thats all i want
January 9th, 2008
205th
(0)
Hell, why stop at T-shirts? Take the merchandising thing all the way... get jackets, hats, thongs...
January 9th, 2008
212th
(1)
i demand an Nedm shirt for my dog
January 9th, 2008
217th
(0)
Forget shirts, jackets and hats. Max needs to look at YTMND as a whole and think long and hard to himself what every single user here always needs. I of course am talking about YTMND brand condoms, pregnancy tests, c*ck rings and of course sunscreen.
January 9th, 2008
238th
(2)
and stickers. our children should advertise ytmnd when they deface property, not a sh*tty skateboarding company
January 9th, 2008
211th
(0)
Here's me participating. Anyone using alts to vote should be gone the first time they do it. This might already be happening, but I've seen countless people who have used alts either resurface later, or nothing is done at all (beyond deleting the alt accounts). I'm sure there's also been some exceptions for special cases as well, but from what I've seen way too many people get away with this and other violations of the TOS.
January 9th, 2008
213th
(-1)
it's a little known fact that I'm actually a Fourest alt
January 9th, 2008
216th
(0)
While I'm at it, since NSFW has more or less become an arbitrary designation rather than something helpful, I don't think users should be punished for incorrectly flagging their sites unless the content is either pornographic or excessively offensive. Obviously there's no manpower to flag every site that says f*ck, f*g or has loud noises, so there either needs to be real enforcement, or anything that the advertisers don't sh*t a brick about should be SFW.
January 9th, 2008
219th
(0)
Well there is little I can do to offer much help but say that I have always appreciated all the work you've done for us. And while I have only contributed 4 crappy sites and been following ytmnd since june 04, a part of me does still feel like a member of the community, even if its a minuscule one. Please keep doing the work you do and realize we do appreciate it. I do have ONE idea...
January 9th, 2008
222nd
(0)
Perhaps, you can have it so that sites in the newly created site section on the front page MUST get 10 votes before they can move on. Any site below a 2 will be automatically deleted. This should allow bad sites to be thrown out before they can go on and good deserving sites to be recognized. People won't be able to submit new ones until people give them proper voting. So all you have to do is ban alt accounts and all the "narvs" and hopefully this system could work. JUST an idea, maybe make it 5? your call
January 9th, 2008
221st
(0)
Any replies to my stuff under Max's first post? As far as a "Discussion"?
January 9th, 2008
228th
(1)
I don't think sites that get low votes/views need to be deleted. The bandwidth is the stuff that costs money, not so much the storage space. The voting system is FINE the way it is. The problem as so many people have pointed out is the alt abusers. IP restrictions would be great, but would there be problems with dynamic IPs?
January 9th, 2008
230th
(0)
I don't imagine you can keep someone banned from a big site like this (Ex. JoshCube), you can't ban entire ISPs. What I'd like to see is when the people register again, they get deleted again. I know the mods try to do it, and for the most part they've done a good job. I've seen a few go right back to what they were doing, though, without a deletion for months.
January 9th, 2008
234th
(0)
Voting system is fine yes, but as long as the site has a rating above 2.9 i dont think it should be deleted even if it has very low votes as you said. But for the alts blommer, that should really be put on the mods responsibility to track down accounts that constantly vote 5 or 1 and figure out patterns (like always voting on a specific person's sites). I don;t think we cvan fully eliminate the alts, but if the mod system is even decent it should drastically make problem minor in comparision to others.
January 9th, 2008
243rd
(0)
I'd think it'd be easy to write a script to look through http://ytmnd.com/users/list/newest to find users immediately 5ing or 1ing lots of sites of certain users and then notifying a mod to determine if it's an abusive alt or just a newbie.
January 9th, 2008
249th
(0)
That sounds good blommer, I am worried about the abuse some people might take with it "Ban this guy! He is a downvoater!!!!!!! BAN HIM!" But then again its the moderator who gets the final say so I'm behind this idea.
January 9th, 2008
320th
(0)
Why would you not want sites that are rated 2.9 or lower to be deleted? They are seen probably 10 times before they hit the abyss.
January 9th, 2008
327th
(1)
I think MAX wants to keep YTMND as a vehicle for free expression. If that means sites get sh*tty votes then so be it. Like I said, storage costs mean little compared to bandwidth. Remember TELEMARKETER? Remember THE SIZE OF OUR PLANET? Remember those DIGG'D SITES? I refer to the Gospel of Max: Post 69; Paid Membership; Verse 2 - "YTMND's main cost is from bandwidth."
January 10th, 2008
335th
(0)
To POS, I want sites 2.9 and below to be deleted just because I hate seeing search options come up with 6 good sites on a topic and 6 pages of crap. Yeah, I know its selfish but everyone was voicing thier opinions so yeah, I guess I retract that statement. To Blommer, whats your idea for solving the bandwidth costs?
January 11th, 2008
447th
(0)
Agreed.
January 12th, 2008
485th
(0)
I five a lot of sites, where does that leave me?
January 9th, 2008
224th
(0)
...vote, and finally Max or maybe even a VERY highly respected member of the community is chosen as the final (executive) vote. Note, that people might think well if Max and the super mods like it, the majority is screwed, but the super mods are super mods for a reason becuase they know exactly what is good material and what is not. That's just the most fair and simple system in my opinion.
January 9th, 2008
233rd
(0)
more mods.
January 9th, 2008
237th
(0)
elaborate? you want more mods to make it seem like a very small group isnt controlling the hall of fame voting system?
January 9th, 2008
235th
(0)
There is currently a glitch where a site flagged as NSFW by anyone will automatically become SFW if edited by the site creator in any way. This has been exploited numerous times to undo moderation decisions, although it should be easy to fix (all moderation is logged.) A question raised from this is how one can change a site from NSFW to SFW with the appropriate permissions, should they wish to repent (perhaps just telling them to recreate the site will suffice, but popular sites may be a different story.)
January 9th, 2008
236th
(0)
Thus, I would propose allowing NSFW sites that receive a pre-designated level of popularity (a number of views, a certain rating, etc…) to have a “review” option, where they may be forwarded to a moderator. Should they be deemed SFW after the creator makes his /her changes (yet still be NSFW from a previous flag), they could be changed by the moderator. Why do I propose this? Because there are a lot of good sites out there that are currently NSFW; this would give those sites a chance to fairly become SFW.
January 9th, 2008
241st
(0)
I don't know, I have seen few sites that change a site from NSFW into SFW becuase they dont like the flag. Don't honest users who make a NSFW site for a joke know its usually gonna be flagged? WHy would they change the joke if they knew from the beginning the joke's lack of "political correctness" so to speak.
January 9th, 2008
312th
(0)
Zalli makes a good point. Moderators go through the queues often enough that editing should only set off a request for another review of the site, not change the moderation on it immediately.
January 9th, 2008
242nd
(-1)
Left my detailed list of points in the last news post. An additional point, I think the comment +/- system needs some work. The comment scores don't really mean anything, and the inflamatory comments only get highlighted more. It stopped the "wall of text spam" comments, but anyone who does that should just get all their comments deleted and their commenting ability locked per future moderation systems.
January 9th, 2008
247th
(-1)
Exactly, I agree totally, if it has -10 or more the user is punished and the comment is deleted.
January 9th, 2008
251st
(0)
Yeah, but then if 10 users gang up on various people, the targets could be robbed of anything they ever comment.
January 9th, 2008
253rd
(-1)
Theres no group 10 people or more that would be abusive like that...execpt for maybe featured users with too much power or alts and in theory if everything else worked out the alts would no longer be a problem. Give me an example of a group of 10 or more that could abuse the system like that and i'll rethink my idea.
January 9th, 2008
254th
(3)
Punishing because of a low comment score?! Gimme a break. Trolls should be dealt with, but there's no reason to punish someone for having an unpopular opinion.
January 9th, 2008
256th
(-1)
Well, I never downvote a comment for having a different opinion blommer, but I DO downvote the comments that are generally useless such as "1" "N*GG*RS!" and such, they should be punishable becuase it contributes absolutly NOTHING and just spreads racial and or personal hatred towards others.
January 10th, 2008
330th
(-1)
All trolls do is pointless downvote comments. Most sites average a -2 on every comment because someone went down the line minus'ing everything. You cannot make something significant happen because of these pointless values to the right of the site. Voting low on sites doesn't make them disappear, but something with a low score will disappear from the applicable lists on its own soon enough. Inflammatory or worthless comments never go away. That should change. Maybe site creator could delete comments?
January 10th, 2008
354th
(-1)
I'm still for the idea of letting site creators delete comments off their page. I think, though, that it should leave the comment box where the user had commented and leave a grayed-out message that says something like, "This comment was deleted by the site creator" That way it wouldn't mess up nested comments and point out to other users that, "hey, such-n-such deleted such-n-suchs comment"
January 9th, 2008
255th
(-1)
I'm too lazy to read through all the comments, but I believe the HoF should be organized in a system similar to if it gets a certain amount of votes (say 5 million+), it will be queued for review by all moderators (or users, that's a possibility for the idea too), but with the exception that the administrator can over-rule the decision. LOL I said lazy...
January 9th, 2008
258th
(-1)
I don't like the administrator being able to over rule everyone elses opinion (in all respect to Max) I just think that once we narrow it down to 2 choices by popular vote it would be a lot simpler for the 3 groups (av. people, mods, admin) to simply vote for the best one of the two and see from there who wins. Site A won the popular vote and was Max's choice, Site B won the moderators vote therefore Site A is the winner with 2 to 1.
January 9th, 2008
259th
(0)
BTW Max, maybe you should add another tab to /sites/manage/create that asks the simple question in a bold font "Are you sure you aren't just taking a picture you got off of google images and putting MP3 from Limewire over it?" I know the front tab that asks you to comply w/ the ToS, but this would really throw people off. Oh, & you should add some sort of anti-hotlinking measures, that would really cut down on some bandwidth...
January 9th, 2008
262nd
(-1)
I'm gonna go into IRC syntax for a moment here I guess, so... Bravedude: but since your concept has 3 groups, then there's never a chance of stalemate, so wouldn't it be easier to simply apply '2/3 gets in' to all of the sites instead of putting them against each other?
January 9th, 2008
265th
(-1)
So you are saying instead of trying have only the best one in the group move on by competition and elimination, every canidate should be looked at and judged accordingly? If thats what your saying, I don't like it, becuase then every "good" site will be put in, and the Hall of Fame should really be reserved for the best of the best that people still remember years after they have gone from the front page..What is love is a good example of how people still remember it and love it. I don't want a "good"...
January 9th, 2008
266th
(0)
...site to be in the HoF only for 6 months later a user will be going through the list and not remember the site. "Hmmm, I forgot what this one was..." That should never happen for a hall of FAME. Frankly, the only choice is for every month, 1 site is chosen as the best becuase then the HoF loses its meaning if it is not truely the best of the best, the ones that have reached epicness, etc...do you get my point?
January 9th, 2008
267th
(0)
Saturation would be an issue. How about a concept that YTMND hosts a competition monthly, bimonthly or trimonthly, where every site meeting a minimal view/vote count all get tallied up, they all get knocked down to a top 5 or 3 in the end, & after the final one is chosen, all the mods write a review for each site. I think that'd have a good balance of democracy, while still reducing inflation. LOL, inflation...
January 9th, 2008
269th
(0)
I like your idea very much but i'm tweaking it a bit, so maybe it could go something like this...We have the list of sites for every MONTH (must keep saturation down), by popular vote (view counts are dumb in my opinion) we take it down to a final 3 canidates to choose. Then we have moderators give reviews and put thier support in for 1 canidate (like famous people do for pres. canid.) Then the winner is by again popular vote. Is that good?
January 9th, 2008
272nd
(0)
Pretty much what I was thinking. BTW when I said bi/trimontly, I mean every 2/3 months, not 2/3x a month. lol, I said pretty...
January 9th, 2008
276th
(0)
Oh, my mistake. I would actually do trimonthy if it was my decision but I think most people will think thats too long, but whatever. And yeah it is basically your idea with the execption of having the moderators actually supporting one of the three sites. I really want to make the election process as involved with all groups as possible. I see that respected members of the community are actually listened to in terms of a sites value. You know what I mean?
January 9th, 2008
263rd
(0)
Instead of weighted voting allow some users access to vote a site up to six stars or vote it 0 stars.
January 9th, 2008
264th
(0)
Nah.
January 9th, 2008
268th
(2)
I'm quite tired of talking and reading about the mod systems. Most of it's the same thing repeated. All I know is this, you can't and shouldn't moderate how people vote. If someone only wants to downvote, then that's fine. If someone only wants to upvote, then fine. There is nothing wrong if people only like noise sites, poorly developed sites, or sites that are nothing but regurgitated fads. Trying to moderate the quality of content isn't possible either.
January 9th, 2008
271st
(0)
It isn't feasable for a mod to go down the recently created and say "bad site, deleted". For starters, that's subjective and what one person may hate, someone else may like. As far as downvoters like Punisher or iamthelaw, honestly, let them be. While everyone hates being downvoted by a troll, those few downvoters aren't targeting one person. They are attacking everyone equally. Anyway, if you're going to go after downvoters, then you need to go after upvoters.
January 9th, 2008
273rd
(0)
Upvoters are just as abusive as downvoters. In the end it doesn't matter because one person's account isn't going to be as harmful as it used to be. There's plenty of time to get good views with how the U&C voting total and days has been extended. The main thing that needs to be controlled are the alts. The thing everyone keeps talking about. People who upvote their own site because they think their site should have a higher rating and deserves more views are more destructive to this site than someone
January 9th, 2008
274th
(0)
like FatherMcKenzie who only downvotes with one account. I used to think deleting is the best thing, but punishing them by taking away their voting rights is just as good. Plus if it turns out to be a sibling or roommate, then it's possible to reverse the punishment. Something you can't do by deleting the account. How many times did Wingerding get caught not only upvoting his own sites with 20 alts, but downvoting other sites in the U&C to keep his ratings inflated? Nothing happened to him so he kept
January 9th, 2008
275th
(0)
forcing himself into the U&C and the top view. If someone continually gets caught with abusing alts, then delete them. But something has to be done about them because many good users have left or quit making sites because of them. You should also be able to automatically delete all votes when people are busted with alts. After all the damage has already been when you've discovered the alts. Jizzmotron's 30 alts are still in the deletion query months after he destroyed many good site's rating.
January 9th, 2008
277th
(1)
Abusive alts are THE PROBLEM. I agree completely with hank.
January 9th, 2008
278th
(0)
Those ratings won't be adjusted until the accounts are deleted. That isn't fair to those people. But if you make it possible to delete those votes that day, or the next. Then the damage is minimal. The only type of site that should be deleted are shock sites, animal abuse, child porn, stuff in that nature. Marking them NSFW isn't good enough either. They need to be deleted. How many times did twistedbarney post the LemonParty picture. How many times has momthinksimcool posted the burning cat video.
January 9th, 2008
279th
(0)
Delete them and if they keep making more delete them too. If they keep it up, ban them, block them, whatever. Eventually they will tire and go away then if you let them be. The last thing is what ever rules you put in place, need to be enforce. The warning on the site creator is a joke because nothing will happen if I post hardcore anime kiddy porn with a dog ripped apart in the background. If you say, this will not be tolerated, then don't tolerate it.
January 9th, 2008
280th
(0)
I know you can't catch everything, but with a good 20-30 mods, you should be able to catch a lot. Sorry for going of on such a long rant. I'm trapped in a hotel in Idaho and depressed because I wrecked my truck today. These are all my thoughts about the mod system and I don't think I'm going to talk about them any more. I hope this makes sense, too and isn't too scatterbrained. I'm doing a stream of conscience writing instead of thinking out what I'm going to say.
January 9th, 2008
281st
(0)
Each paragraph hank types is filled with more truth then the paragraph before it.
January 9th, 2008
304th
(1)
Punisher has targeted me, besides, who cares who he targets? Is he contributing to the quality of the site? No, he makes it worse. The punishment should fit the crime... if someone starts blindly voting all 1's, take away voting privileges. If someone keeps posting lemonparty sites, take away the ability to post sites.
January 9th, 2008
305th
(1)
I mentioned earlier that new users should start with limits... post one site a day, vote on up to 20 sites, comment on 20 sites. In time, by posting quality material and actively participating in the rating and commenting process, they would earn rank and the ability to do more on the site.
January 9th, 2008
306th
(0)
And if they create alts, any new user created from that IP address will get the absolute lowest rank with zero site creation, voting, and commenting privilieges.
January 9th, 2008
310th
(-1)
Yeah, Punisher has targeted you. He has targeted me. He has targeted Darthwang. He has targeted anyone who downvotes his sites. He has targeted anyone who upvotes his sites. He targets anyone on the u&C and targets anyone on the recently created. In other words, he targets everyone. He isn't huring anything by downvoting a year-old site that will only get viewed by those looking for it. You target him then you have to target Fourest who would five hundreds of sites a day with the random generator.
January 9th, 2008
323rd
(0)
It's not the creation of alts that's bad, it's the dishonest voting. Like MAX said in news post #78, "... a lot of people...create alts, and in most cases (where people aren't using them to upvote themselves) it's to separate styles and remove the associations with their main account."
January 9th, 2008
324th
(0)
Some people make alts as jokes. And sometimes they make alts to hide themselves from crazy users with schoolgirl grudges. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
January 10th, 2008
331st
(0)
I agree with what you're saying to a great extent. I think everything except extreme cases should be tolerated (some exceptions). There needs to be permanent and swift punishment, and the harshest punishment should be deletion. Account deleted - all sites deleted - all votes deleted - all comments deleted. Sure they can make another account but their "street cred" is gone. For those priding themselves on "how long they've been here" that's everything. Only by real consequences can behavior be deterred
January 10th, 2008
351st
(-1)
I don't target anyone anymore except for a small list of exclusive users in the 'Rampaging F*ggot' category. ;D
January 10th, 2008
352nd
(-1)
The list of those users, in alphabetical order: JoeyJoeJoe
January 10th, 2008
362nd
(0)
This is a dollars-and-cents issue as well. Let's assume that that failure-in-life Punisher has let every site load about halfway... maybe 1 meg worth. Multiply that times 44,791, that is a lot of wasted bandwidth. How much did all of those useless, pointless downvotes cost max?
January 10th, 2008
363rd
(0)
That goes for sh*tty, repetitive content as well. We'll use Mariostar06 as an example here... maybe 250 sites, with an average of, let's say, about 12 hits each. That is a lot of wasted bandwidth, and for what? So he can harrass BTape and post the same old worthless FPA sh*t over and over?
January 10th, 2008
364th
(0)
January 10th, 2008
372nd
(0)
http://punishers.ytmnd.com/
January 10th, 2008
375th
(0)
Punisher even used his alt, sh*ttypup, to go through and downvote all of my sites.
January 10th, 2008
376th
(0)
also, c*cks
January 10th, 2008
388th
(0)
JoeyJoeJoe, when are you going to figure out that when you make sites about downvoters or trolls then they are going to target you harder?
January 10th, 2008
409th
(0)
I don't care if they target me. F*ck 'em.
January 10th, 2008
410th
(-3)
The problem is, any user who spends a few hours making a site will hope it reaches U&C. Of course, most sites won't, but that's besides the point. If that users keeps making good sites that gets downvoted right away by ppl like Punisher, he will eventually do one of three things: 1- Stop making sites. 2- Create an alt to counter-vote the downvotes 3- Repost the site. And I'm totally convinced that reposting a site is much worse than upvotting with an alt, although I've never seen anyone complain about that.
January 11th, 2008
412th
(0)
Also, I assure you that downvoters/downvoting alts have much more impact than upvoters/upvoting alts. You see, when a site is struggling to get above 3.50-4.60, sure extra any 5 that site can get will help, but even if someone has 10 alts to upvote himself, alright he's an idiot but you'll never even notice it in the final rating, after the site gets over 50 votes. On a small scale, it's the 1s that makes the whole difference in a site's rating.
January 11th, 2008
434th
(0)
LePape, what about honest downvotes? Most downvotes are from people who don't like the site. With how few active downvoters there are (like iamthelaw or N4rvst), there isn't enough to destroy a site for good unless they have 20-30 alts like Jizzomotron or Guchehair. I have a few sites that I slaved on, only to go no where. On the other hand, I've had sites that went no where, then two to four weeks later become extremely popular (back when we had the worthwhile section).
January 11th, 2008
435th
(1)
I know no one likes being downvoted. I've been targeted by many revenge downvoters, jizzmotron, and guchehair and his 20 alts. But this justification that it's okay to create a bunch of alts to compensate for them is not good. Where does it stop? Right now everyone has 4 to 5 days to get on the U&C. Right now that's even hard to do because there people aren't downvoting sites because they are afraid of retaliation or being labeled a downvoter.
January 11th, 2008
436th
(0)
I had a big rant here, but deleted this because this is Max's news post not my blog.
January 11th, 2008
437th
(1)
"...but even if someone has 10 alts to upvote himself, alright he's an idiot but you'll never even notice it in the final rating, after the site gets over 50 votes" You want to see the impact, then delete those votes and see how much the ratings drop. People's sense of entitlement to make the U&C is what's damaging this place. It isn't up to the site creator what rating their site should have. Lcadwallader makes some of the funniest sites I've ever seen, but he rarely has a rating over 3.5 (cont)
January 11th, 2008
438th
(1)
because his humor isn't inline with the majority of users. Anyway to get back to the point. Downvoters here are a fact of life. It's a risk everyone has when releasing a new site. The simple fact is everyone has five days to make the U&C and a good site is not destined to obscurity if it only has a 3.8 rating 30 minutes after being made.
January 11th, 2008
448th
(0)
"It isn't up to the site creator what rating their site should have."--> All I'm saying is, it's not up to mr. "I have 10 alts to downvote", or mr. "you downvoted my site so I'll downvote yours" to decide either, when people abuse the system, others are just tempted to do the same to balance things out. Anyway, I guess the only possible solution for this would be weighted votes, hopefully that would kill this whole downvoting/upvoting debate once and for all.
January 11th, 2008
452nd
(0)
And that's the whole thing I've been talking about dealing with. But you can't turn around and say someone using 10 alts to downvote a sites is bad, but using 10 alts to upvote my own site is good because it balances out in the end. That's destructive, self-serving logic. Do you have any idea how many users have caught people upvoting their own site with a bunch of alts as soon as it was made? That isn't countering downvoters. That's forcing a site into the U&C.
January 12th, 2008
501st
(0)
http://www.ytmnd.com/users/Mcgormack/votes I thought LePepe quit using his alt (the only one I know of). Put there it is, his newest site with a five rating. The site did well the entire first day so there was no reason to alt upvote it either.
January 12th, 2008
502nd
(2)
http://www.ytmnd.com/users/lamontagne/votes http://www.ytmnd.com/users/lolgormack/votes http://www.ytmnd.com/users/jourgensen/votes max put them all on the deletion queue
January 13th, 2008
507th
(0)
Every single one of them upvoted K-1000. I thought he quit using his alts when he got busted. Looks like he hasn't.
January 9th, 2008
282nd
(0)
I don't know where I should put suggestions, but here it goes: For the hall of fame list, I think that your idea of X votes by user depending on how much times you've been here is good. But it would be greatly improved if you, or the community of mods, have a right on veto on the sites being added to the Hall of Fame, This way it would prevents anything that doesn't deserve at all to be in there to corrupt the wonderful place the Hall of Fame will be.
January 9th, 2008
287th
(1)
I don't like the idea of X votes by user just by how much you have been here. I like the 1 person 1 vote rule. And in addition to what me and atari2600a suggested above about mods writing reviews and supporting a specific site, I think that it is fair for them to veto a site that maybe is not up to standard with the others.
January 9th, 2008
283rd
(0)
As someone mentioned some comments back, it might make sense to set it up like the baseball hall of fame. Every (insert some period of time here) either just you and you and some group of mods or something create a "ballot" of YTMNDs that were particularly highly rated, obviously took a lot of effort, spawned a huge fad, etc. Then the ballot goes up on the main page or somewhere else that makes sense and everyone gives a very simple "Yes" or "No" vote.
January 9th, 2008
284th
(0)
If the % of "Yes" votes are above a certain threshold, it gets in. If it gets above a slightly lower threshold it doesn't get in but gets to stay on the next ballot. If it does horrible, it goes away. I dunno how hard it would be to prevent repeated voting and other douchebaggery with something like that though.
January 9th, 2008
285th
(0)
Also, if everyone can vote on it, not everyone might get the idea that its supposed to be the "best of the best" and not just sites you like, and so you might have to make the percentage to get into the HoF really high to prevent like, every site nominated from getting in.
January 9th, 2008
290th
(0)
Sounds good, but if theres more then say 5 sites on the ballot, a single site might never reach the percentage it takes to be put in. It would probably be divided between 10-35% for each site and thats way to low to be considered the peoples choice.
January 9th, 2008
286th
(0)
About the punishment system though is it agreeable that any user with alts should be immediately deleted while those that are just plain abusive will be banned from commenting and voting until after a certain limit where they will finally be deleted?
January 9th, 2008
292nd
(0)
Meh, i'm done thinking about this as apparantly many are, judging by lack of new comments. I gave my contribution to the communities ideas.
January 9th, 2008
293rd
(1)
HEY MAX I was running my bath and I had a great idea: How about a box on the front page that shows sites from only a single user, and that user changes every day. Mods or some bot could be put in place to ensure that it's not some stupid user that's made like two or zero sites. It would be like a Special User of the Day box. Or if that doesn't sit too well with you, how about a box that shows sites randomly chosen from four or five users. How about it? Huh?
January 9th, 2008
294th
(1)
Or here's another idea. Users could choose a single of their YTMNDs to be put on a list. A box on the front page shows 10 (or 5, whatever) of these sites, chosen randomly from this list. The box could update itself every day, or twice a day... you get my drift. Also, I'm waiting for you to appear on the Colbert Report. You've already had dealings with him with the Green Screen Challenge thing... YTMND would get a lot more publicity... think about it! Best wishes, kepledon
January 9th, 2008
295th
(1)
Or, you could just have a section "filibuster's YTMNDS". A random selection of 10 of my sites appear each time you visit front page.
January 9th, 2008
296th
(2)
It would be like the "best of each user" box
January 9th, 2008
297th
(1)
I think i should read the TODO list.
January 9th, 2008
302nd
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
simple solution: more stallone
January 9th, 2008
307th
(1)
A while back you had it set so that assets could not be reused. Except for the problem with site editing, that was actually a really good idea. Is that gonna get fixed any time soon?
January 9th, 2008
308th
(0)
there is an easy way around this block, though.
January 9th, 2008
313th
(0)
Easy for some people, but I think the majority of people who repost old assets are either just trying to spam as fast as possible or just don't know how to use an editor at all, so it would help crack down on that issue.
January 10th, 2008
340th
(0)
It's like the lock on your front door. If anyone really wants to get in, they can get in. Let's not make it easy on them.
January 9th, 2008
311th
(1)
You know what annoying glitch needs to be fixed. Stop sending me back to page 1 of the comments when I've commented on page 2.
January 9th, 2008
314th
(0)
max is working on a new paging system
January 9th, 2008
316th
(0)
While I'm hardly an authority on... um... authority, I always imaged a moderation system being defined like this. MAJOR OFFENSES (account hijacking, serious harassment *think 'stalker'*, complete abuse *posting kiddy porn or other level 10 offensive sh*t*, alt usage). Major offenses get their sites erased, banned, or IP blocked. MINOR OFFENSES (harassment *going above and beyond the call of normal YTMND dickery*, spam commenting, gimmick up/downvoting, mislabeling NSFW *the obvious ones. Earrape, porn etc*
January 9th, 2008
317th
(0)
Minor offenses would get a warning, then either a temporary site ban, vote ban, site creation ban, and/or comment ban. If they keep it up, just make whichever ban perminant. As for the smaller stuff (dickery, making sh*t sites, being a general drain on YTMND), people can just grow a pair and live with it. This IS the internet. This is just my personal view on what I image the "rules" of YTMND to be. Feel free to rip my ideas to shreds =)
January 9th, 2008
318th
(0)
How about having mods approving sites before they appear on front page? It should help cut down on shock sites, inside jokes etc. A problem with this, though, would be the editing of a site after submission. Has anyone suggested this, and is it possible to always have a mod on hand to check new sites?
January 10th, 2008
336th
(0)
I'm sure at any point of the day at least one moderator would be online YTMND. Unless there are fewer moderators then I think there are?
January 10th, 2008
394th
(0)
That seems like a lot of power to give a single person. What if the mod hates your ass? Oops, they found a problem with the site x/
January 10th, 2008
402nd
(0)
good point
January 9th, 2008
319th
(0)
For the Hall of Fame. Why not hold a vote every month for a site to get inducted into the Hall of Fame. Each user gets one vote. The sites that can get voted on are picked by max and the moderation staff.
January 9th, 2008
321st
(-5)
[ comment (and 1 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
pull the plug. start from scratch
January 10th, 2008
328th
(0)
They survive on being so stupid it's funny or projecting themselves as the anti-hero. The sad thing is how militant the FPA can get. What started as a joke antithesis of the DEW ARMY has become so serious, especially to newer "members." Someone who identifies themselves as belonging to the FPA should "turn the other cheek" when criticized.
January 10th, 2008
333rd
(0)
They really swarm the comment pages though.
January 10th, 2008
389th
(0)
I hate what the FPA has turned into to. They are nothing but a bunch of trolls with recycled idea. They have become everything they were against.
January 11th, 2008
479th
(0)
It's really sad. Even Kassius and Aegis have turned away from it.
January 12th, 2008
487th
(0)
Yeah, they criticize others for overusing ideas, and then they turn around and make the same mockery sites they have always made, and the joke is always the same. Actually, I would say judging from more recent material like Darthwang's ten second paint sites with TTS, FPA has actually degenerated.
January 29th, 2008
645th
(0)
I only made those TTS Paint sites because my computer was broken. It's fixed now.
January 29th, 2008
646th
(0)
lol
January 10th, 2008
334th
(-1)
catonakeyboardinspace for hall of fame
January 10th, 2008
339th
(1)
We need some "official" sort of contests. Like something once a week, some sort of theme that max decides on. There should be a seperate box for it on the front page. It should be moderated in a way that any sites not related to the chosen theme are deleted.
January 10th, 2008
341st
(2)
i wish we had a smod or some e-mail we could send a complaint about someone spamming the same sites over and over again, those that took no effort where something gets done, because if i see another "moonman does whatever" site by the same crap user, i think my brain will explode
January 10th, 2008
343rd
(0)
there are just so many sites when i search the recently created that it seems like people just say "hey, im gonna use the same image and sound over and over, or im going to use the same image and 50 different sounds and make 50 different sites, so its ok, lol" and that bugs me.
January 10th, 2008
360th
(0)
If your concern is great enough, try sending a private message to a moderator or two. Should the user whom you're reporting be abusive enough, their sites can be NSFW'd (if necessary) and reported to Max for review/deletion. This is only for abuse (large quantities of spam, molesting a user, etc...) Mere disapproval of content is unlikely to get anything done, since it is a not a moderator's duty to judge sites solely by their content preferences.
January 10th, 2008
345th
(0)
How about some sort of decibel/volume meter (or adjustment?) in the create preview site, or somewhere around the site creation area. I've notice with my sites and others volume adjustments are usually necessary to prevent ear rape or not hearing anything at all... which sucks a little. I'm sure the usual ear rape site creators would ignore this but for the rest it would make a nice addition, and maybe save some hearing aid batteries.
January 10th, 2008
348th
(-1)
[ comment (and 2 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-1)
STFU Fourgetter, I never downvote sites for "not having ear rape" unless it's a fad that's SUPPOSED to have ear rape (i.e. Poland). That said, http://vote5polandman.ytmnd.com/ for HOF
January 10th, 2008
368th
(4)
If you're going to give users a general ability to vote for certain YTMNDs to enter the Hall of Fame, expect some overrated sites as well as deserving and creative ones to make it on there at some point. Still, it should be an improvement. Time-related prerequisites seem to be the best approach. I imagine rewarding users based on success rather than experience e.g. Pink/Featured would spark cries of elitism.
January 10th, 2008
384th
(2)
agreed. The larger our dysfunctional family, the more ad revenues, the longer this site can tread water. Giving bonuses to people who've just been around longer or managed to get featured makes it that much harder to get into site creation. I don't know of anyone who had their first site be a huge hit. We all work our way up
January 12th, 2008
488th
(0)
Except Chronster. His first site was 4.5 for god sakes. I couldn't understand he did it until I investigated. Apparently, his account consists of a team of seven midgets kept in cages and forced to write jokes and edit gifs for a fat man with a gun.
January 13th, 2008
504th
(1)
They prefer the term "little winners"
January 10th, 2008
369th
(0)
i think everyone should have input into the hall of fame sites, but ultimately the super mods and max have final say. kinda like the electoral college or some sh*t.
January 10th, 2008
373rd
(0)
I don't know if this is off topic or not... but I really think that if you are going to vote you should at least leave a comment as to why you like it or why you don't. I don't know about the rest of you, but I make a site of some crap that a see and hear, put it together and post it because i think it is funny and I want to share. If you don't like it, say why, if you do... leave a comment.
January 10th, 2008
374th
(0)
At one point I got pissed off that I don't know why some site that isnt even funny gets 5'd and mine get a 2 and nobody tells me why my site is bad. When you think about it.... if you leave enough comments, good or bad about a site, it may help weed out the crap being put out on here. I dont know, possible, Max, creating a "AUTO COMMENT" that you can query for sites commented like "BEST SITE" or "NEEDS WORK" or "YOU NEED TO BE BANNED". Im oing to get flamed, but this is what frustrated me about YTMND
January 10th, 2008
378th
(0)
i still think setting all sites as NSFW then hand picking them for the front page (WS) would alleviate a lot of problems instantly and things would turn out better in the long run (just saying)
January 10th, 2008
379th
(0)
just have mods approve sites before they appear on the front page. it should eliminate all shock sites and inside jokes. of course, how do you deal with people editing their sites after submission, though?
January 10th, 2008
381st
(0)
Too much work tbh
January 10th, 2008
385th
(0)
That's not practical. It is unlikely that a moderator would always be available to "approve" a site at all times. In addition, it could become quite a burden during hours of peak usage to go through so many sites.
January 12th, 2008
490th
(0)
filibuster: just make the sites become NSFW (or "not yet ready for front page") until they're cleared again / lolski: not as much work as keeping the front page relatively clean as it happens / Zalli: quality over quantity - it would turn out better in the long run IMO
January 10th, 2008
380th
(-3)
BORING
January 10th, 2008
386th
(2)
YOUR MOM IS
January 10th, 2008
403rd
(0)
OH SNAP
January 10th, 2008
390th
(0)
Victz's idea would not work for two reasons 1.) Groups of people could circumvent the whole system 2.) Some people (me as an example) do not post sites or many comments so using the star system is rather pointless in those cases What I would recommend probably will not be liked but is the only way the site can be governed objectively. You have to get together a group of YTMND users that you trust and feel are impartial and have them run the moderation of the site.
January 10th, 2008
391st
(1)
(continued) User moderation is the equivalent of the inmates running the asylum. Whoever has the biggest group of friends can yield great power over the site. That is why everyone hates downvoters so much and now we plan to give them a chance to moderate themselves? Personally, as people prove themselves to be trustworthy (how that is done I honestly have no idea ) they should be allowed to have moderation options. Limiting posting options should be done by a certain percent of posts that (continue again)
January 10th, 2008
392nd
(0)
that have been moderated by the chosen moderators. First offense: 1 day, Second offense: 1 week, Third offense: 4 weeks, Fourth offense: Ban. Trolling comments and sites mocking certain YTMNDers should be governed by this system while multi-accounting is an insta-ban.
January 10th, 2008
393rd
(0)
User Moderation is a horrible idea with the rampant circlejerking that YTMND has succumbed to over the last 8 months. Part of the reason I hardly come to the site any more. I wish we could get it back to the way it used to be. The pink names just glorified the exact thing ytmnd did not need. Especially for users that do not live on the site.
January 10th, 2008
405th
(0)
I don't about all new users but I started going on YTMND almost right after it had changed into this orange thing (I can't remember exactly when that was) but even from then I have seen the decline of such a great site. I left YTMND around the end of October of 2007 becuase I was sick of it and I came back just this Christmas. I messaged keatonkeaton999 to fill me in on what I have missed since then, and all I got was a list of new feat. users, Ted Danson and NO OTHER GOOD FADS! How is this possible?!......
January 10th, 2008
406th
(0)
...When I first started enjoying YTMND, every other week there was a good fad, big or small. Now I see that some feat. users are making good bye sites, not making any new ones becuase of trolls and downvoters, it sickens me to realize how much its even gone farther down since I took my break. I don't like having the moderators having the last word on everything, becuase moderators are obviously gonna be corrupt, but I guess now thats what it takes to stop this endless downward spin that has been occuring...
January 10th, 2008
407th
(0)
...over the past year. User moderation is a horrible idea right now, but once we get rid of the problem users and the trolls, I still think we should then give the idea at least another look at it, because like someone said above, if a mod is pissed off at you because you say didn't agree with one of his earlier decisions, well your screwed. And wheres the justice in that?
January 10th, 2008
408th
(0)
Also, I kind of scrambled my thoughts in the beginning about new users, my thinking was that I don't know if most new users could tell the downward spin, but I had joined...etc...
January 11th, 2008
413th
(-1)
...i think you should go away for another while
January 11th, 2008
418th
(0)
HEY!..................shut up.
January 10th, 2008
400th
(0)
Hey max, what about changing the CAPTCHAs to the reCAPTCHA project? http://recaptcha.net/
January 10th, 2008
411th
(-1)
HAHAHAHA I've made it change words into *ssh*le, sucksc*ck, etc.. I'm such an *ssh*le.
January 11th, 2008
414th
(-2)
The only I can see this whole situation improving is to make me a featured user... Then I'll immediately post a SH*T LOAD of ear-rape sites to become un-featured... (then repeat the cycle)
January 11th, 2008
415th
(0)
How about every site a user makes that rates 3.5+ or 4.0+ is worth 1 or 2 HoF voting "points" respectively. A user may then spend these points towards a site of their choice. Any site requires a set amount of points spent toward it, something like 20 to 50, to be moved to the front page under a section named "Hall of Fame (or HoF) Hopefuls", where it can be voted by the community as to whether or not it's worthy of HoF status.
January 11th, 2008
416th
(0)
The community as a whole can vote on the site with a "Yae" or "Nay" option. The site will remain the on "HoF Hopeful(s)" section for a period of 2-3 days. If it has a certain ratio of positive to negative votes by that time period, it will either be voted into the HoF or cast aside. When this site has finished being voted on, the next site(s) in the list will move up to take its place, and the 2-3 day period will start again.
January 11th, 2008
417th
(0)
As far as I can see, it places the issue on the community's doorstep, takes the burden of combing through the archives off max's shoulders, and promotes quality site-making.
January 11th, 2008
419th
(-1)
[ comment (and 11 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-1)
father mckenzie and darthwang aren't downvoters or trolls, they just have taste and that pisses people off when their HORRIBLE sites get 1ed
January 11th, 2008
451st
(1)
I always wanted categories of nsfw, such as bad words, ear rape, and nudity. I wear headphones so I normally just ignore the (nsfw) mark and sometimes I get a site with nudity and I quickly close out of it and hope no one saw it.
January 11th, 2008
471st
(-2)
Anyways my new voat comment method. #1 Thank you for contributing to ytmnd's longevity. #2 Waste of Bandwidth. #3 Thank you for contributing to hrmm I dunno ermmm HMM i Dunno HMM f*ck it #4 Waste of Bandwidth. (seriously what the f*ck were you excpecting?) #5 Obvious alt is obvious (but he isn't featured so who cares!!!) The five levels of POS votes
<< 1 2 3 >>